This week in class, I finished reading The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio. The book is a compilation of stories, split into two parts, which were set during the Black Plague. In this essay, I am going to talk about which part of The Decameron was more gripping to read.
The first part of The Decameron is a compilation of stories set during the time of the Black Plague. The passages are short and easy to read. Historians have even confirmed that some events described in the stories were historically accurate and not completely embellished by Boccaccio. I would not describe the stories as “gripping”, but they were certainly interesting to read.
However, the second part was less interesting and felt like a poorly executed attempt by of trying to get people to understand Boccaccio’s views through convoluted stories. Every story mocked or bashed the Christian religion in subtle ways. The stories felt ridiculous and illogical. While I understand that Boccaccio was aiming for fictional stories, the stories in the second part of The Decameron felt too senseless to count as good fiction. However, I have to admit that the pure silliness of some stories were quite entertaining to read through. Perhaps that was Boccaccio’s goal for the second part of The Decameron.
As you can see, The Decameron was an interesting book to read for the course. Personally, I did not feel “gripped” by any of the stories. Some were interesting and entertaining to read, while others felt a little dull.
Thanks for reading!